Atlantic Repartee

TOMLINSON’S ’The Cliffs of England’ has wings. Good writing brings me greater joy than good music. — Mrs. Isaac Shelby Dallam,Palestine, Tex.

May I thank you for publishing ‘The Cliffs of England Stand’? It is more than great writing — it is England. After reading it I had to set down these verses: —

SONG

— Ernest Moll, University of Oregon

The article appearing in November, ‘Those Who Come Back,’should be widely read. People today are really seeking for something to which they may give themselves. Dr. Bell’s article should bring many up with a start. It demands a decision from all who read it. — Dean James P. DeWolfe, New York City

In his article in September, Mr. Harold S. Quigley wrote, ‘Since the Netherlands is now legally under German rule and the Indies share the legal status of the mother country . . .’ This is a misstatement of the facts. For the enlightenment of yourself, the author, and the American public, I wish to state that the Netherlands East Indies is constitutionally an integral part of the Netherlands Empire. The fact that the Netherlands in Europe is occupied by the enemy does not change the status of the Netherlands Indies. In other words, a part of the Empire is occupied, but the much larger part is unoccupied. The Constitutional Government is functioning in London, with Her Majesty Queen Wilhelmina at the head. Although Germany never declared war on the Netherlands in Europe, and only occupied the Netherlands to ‘protect that country against the British,’the Government of the Netherlands did declare war on Germany immediately after the invasion, and the Netherlands Empire is now at war with Germany, its navy fighting on the side of the British, or protecting the Netherlands East Indies. — Dr. Adrian Harlog, Consul of the Netherlands, Los Angeles,Cal.

Atlanticreaders have asked for the context of that well-known phrase of President Wilson’s, ‘too proud to fight,’quoted by Harold S. Quigley in his paper, ‘The Drift in the Pacific.’ The phrase was used by President Wilson in an address at Philadelphia on May 10, 1915: ‘The example of America must be the example not merely of peace because it will not fight, but of peace because peace is the healing and elevating influence of the world and strife is not. There is such a thing as a man being too proud to fight. There is such a thing as a nation being so right that it does not need to convince others by force that it is right.’

I have been enjoying the Atlantic and wish merely to compliment you, particularly on Mr. Nock’s penetrating pen. I wish it were possible to print a whole issue of white paper with something so pertinent and meaty as his items on free speech and sound revenue. — Albert G. Fuchs, Halesite, N. Y.

I have just read the article in the October issue of your much esteemed magazine by Dr. Ray Lyman Wilbur, of Leland Stanford University, on ‘Statehood for Hawaii.’ I am sorry to differ with Dr. Wilbur. In a few weeks we shall vote in the plebiscite which Dr. Wilbur mentions in his article. That vote will show one thing only — the strength of the Japanese vote in Hawaii. We who live here do not need an interpreter to tell us what it will be. — Elmer C. Andrus, Honolulu, Hawaii

I have read this evening Ray Lyman Wilbur’s ‘Statehood for Hawaii.’ The situation here is so foreign to the States — in spite of our electric stoves, paved highways, permanent waves, and groceries packed with labels ‘S & W,’ ‘Friends,’ ‘Del Monte’ that it is very difficult to be clear while being brief. But one error is readily corrected. The Atlantic states, ‘The issue which he clarifies for the Atlantic will be decided in a plebiscite on November 5.’ This is not so, as the plebiscite will decide nothing. Even a unanimous vote in favor of statehood at that time would not settle anything. Congress can and probably will ignore it. — Barry Fox, Oahu, Hawaii

May I express a word of appreciation to you for the article in October, ‘ Music and the School Board,’ by Barbara Rex. I believe the sincerity and intelligence with which Mrs. Rex describes how music became a major course in the Germantown Friends School should prove stimulating and suggestive to other parents interested in similar improvements in the school curriculum.—Frances Mayfarth (Editor, ’Childhood Education’), Washington, D. C.

Owing to the nature of the position I now hold, I am not permitted to express myself in matters of national affairs, but, being an American, I do feel that it is my privilege to comment on what I read. In the October issue you printed an article written by one W. R. Castle, ‘A Monroe Doctrine for Japan.’ Mr. Castle at numerous times in this article refers to the division of the European possessions of the Asiatic Continent, each time with Germany as the one doing the dividing. Now I should like to know from what source Mr. Castle obtains this forehand knowledge of the outcome of the war. If, as he assumes, Germany has the war won already, why, then, have we been sending supplies and material to the English? Or are the English to share in this division? Please, gentlemen, I have been an avid reader of your magazine for some time; let us not spoil a pleasant acquaintance by publishing this sort of tripe. — Anonymous, Fortress Monroe, Va.

It is a great pity that the brilliant Mr. Landis did so poor a job for us readers of long standing in his sincere and very earnest endorsement of his friend, in the November issue. In this perplexed world we have the right to some classification of principles involved in the place of a list of names of men whom Mr. Landis very evidently dislikes. The Dean of the Harvard Law School did for us a meagre and unsatisfactory essay from this reader’s point of view. — Mrs. Gardner P. Stickney, Milwaukee, Wis.

Permit me to say that the article by Gertrude Stein in the November Atlantic is the most readable war article I have found. In fact, it is almost the only one I have been able to finish. — M. D. Follin, Dunedin, Fla.

Can’t we be spared the well-meaning but myopic remarks by Gertrude Stein on her comfortably wellfed interpretation of France’s tragedy? I think, actually, the Germans ought to pay her top propagandist wages for her passivist view that whatever is is best so long as she can continue to get meat, butter, a little gasoline — and substantial checks in dollars from American publishers. Her bland assumption that ‘the winner loses,’ even in stricken France under the Nazi heel, represents a view that for sheer stupid optimism reaches a new low for Atlantic’s pages. She says too little — too too little — of what the loser loses at the hands of ruthless Germany. (See news reports in the daily papers or reliable letters from occupied France.) The Atlantic ought to be above suffering her brand of mischievous garrulity. — Carlton F. Wells, Ann Arbor, Mich.

Let me congratulate you on Gertrude Stein’s réil. It is beautifully successful and thought-provoking. In its simple diction there is just enough Steinese to give individual accent. Better than anything else that I have read, it realizes and communicates the almost trance-like state in which France must have ‘fought’ the war. The fact that Miss Stein can write so well when she chooses makes it a pity that she has ever, and so often, chosen to do anything else. — Ben Ray Redman, Hollywood, Cal.

Odd how war, tike politics, makes strange bedfellows. For instance, take me and Gertrude Stein — Gertrude, almost cured of her affectations and punctuations by the emergency in France, and me almost liking her! — Daniel H. Rich, Maplewood, N. J.

How admirable in these troublous times is the Atlantic, how sane, how wise indeed! The magazine, to us the old guard, continues to be something of a rock in a weary land, as it was once a rock in a land not weary, — Gilbert Emery, North Hollywood, Cal.

A small girl came to our public library one day, demanding ‘a storybook — but not fairy stories, ‘cause I don’t like ‘em.’ I agreed with the child: I dislike tales of impossible beings, demons and the like, even more than the fairies of children’s stories. And now — to find a story like ‘Thus I Refute Beelzy’ in the Atlantic! The two older members of our family read this with perplexed surprise; we referred it to the youngest and most widely read member of the household, who commented cheerfully, ‘Oh, of course, the boy had a familiar spirit — Beelzebub, no doubt — who ate the man up.’ We agreed that this seemed the only possible meaning — but where is the sense in such a thing? As well write of the excellent cheese a man enjoys, saying he finds pieces of it dropped from the moon! — May Ellis Webster, Roxbury, VI.

You might be interested in one of the out-of-theway places to which your magazine finds its way. On a trip to Northern Arizona we visited Betatekin ruin, a mile down in the beautiful canyon. A foot trail was the only way of reaching it, and a few days before we were there a bad storm had so washed out the road to the rim that we left the car a mile back.

The Ranger naturalist on duty was a delightful host, and the ruin, in its magnificent setting, well worth the effort of the climb. We had with us in the car three back years of the Atlantic which we had taken along to give to some isolated person who would enjoy them. I offered them to the Ranger, but when I found that everything he used had to be carried down that steep trail on his back, I expected my offer to be refused. Much to my amazement, he climbed back to the car with us, giving me a helping hand in especially steep parts of the trail, and when he started back down to his camp he had a big bundle of Atlantics hanging from either end of a staff across his shoulder. His last words were ‘You can think of me tonight, sitting in my tent, feasting on these Atlantics.’ — Helen S. Rivet, Oak Park, Ill.

THE CLAUSE THAT SCRATCHED

— Charles K. Imbrie, Newburgh, N. Y.

When theAtlanticeditors accepted for publication in the October issue Hazel Hendricks’s article ‘Farmers without Farms’ they knew that they were inviting a controversy, for the author spoke with a philosophy which calls for a more severe regulation of American agriculture. They held Miss Hendricks responsible for the figures which she quoted about certain large-scale farms in this country, and it is only fair to acknowledge that these figures and the interpretation which the author drew from them have been seriously questioned: —

In the October Atlantic you have an article entitled ‘Farmers without Farms,’ written by Hazel Hendricks. In this article you mention the Starkey Farms Company. With the exception of the statement that we are a farm and grow some asparagus, which is correct, the entire remaining portion of your reference to the Starkey Farms is without foundation whatsoever and, we consider, damaging to our reputation. We have no farms other than here in Pennsylvania, and this farm is not divided or sharecropped, as indicated, and there is not a mule or a horse on the farm. We do have some very good living accommodations for our people, and we have some that we are not so proud of. We are improving all the time, and hope to improve still further in the future. — W. P. Starkey, Starkey Farms, Morrisville, Pa.

Hazel Hendricks, in her article ‘Farmers without Farms,’ inferred that we hire migratory workers, pay starvation wages, and drive competing farmers from their land. To correct this misunderstanding we should like to present the following facts:—

For the fiscal year from October 1, 1939, to September 30, 1940, our lowest number of full-time weekly employees was nineteen, not including officers and members of our family. The average cash wages per week paid to these employees for working in no case over six nine-hour days was $27.05 per employee. The highest number of full-time weekly employees was twenty-eight, and the average cash wage paid these employees for working not in excess of six nine-hour days was $25.55 per employee. All our employees live only a short distance from our farm. Many own their own homes. A large number of them have never worked anywhere else their entire lives except for Hubbard Farms. Our labor turnover is zero. We have discharged only one regular employee in the last ten years.

Seventy per cent of our employees were born and have always lived within five miles of our farms. To our knowledge our business has never driven a single farmer from his land. We purchase hatching eggs from some seventy other farmers in New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine at the highest egg premium paid by any hatchery. In many cases the owners of these farms would not be there today if it were not for this market that our business provides for them. — O. J. Hubbard, Hubbard Farms, Walpole, N. H.

Hazel Hendricks’s article paints a very gloomy picture of agriculture. To me it is unnecessarily gloomy and by no means descriptive of New Fngland agriculture. Last week I had the privilege of traveling through a part of four New Fngland states with a group of marketing officials representing at least nineteen states. It happened that one of the points we visited was the Applecrest Farm that you mention. and I believe that I could easily prove to you that that farm is a leader in good farm practices, not only for large farmers, but points the way, in many instances, for family-size farms. I think you will find that their labor and social relations are as satisfactory as you would find anywhere. — Louis A. Webster, Division of Markets, Department of Agriculture, Boston

TheAtlantichas always believed in presenting both sides of a troublesome problem, and when, as in this case, an injustice has clearly been done, it is only right that we should have in our January issue an article stating the case for those large-scale, up-to-date farming enterprises of which Miss Hendricks disapproved.

The author of the article with reference to the Hammond organ in September stated that the Federal Trade Commission ‘spoke softly.’ This is positively not the fact. There were a number of hearings before the Trade Commission, and a great many experiments made and reported on. And the result was that the Commission instructed the Hammond Company to ’cease and desist from advertising their instrument as one that would take the place of an organ costing many times as much, and do all that such an organ would do. Certainly, no one on reading the article would gather that the Commission had made such a ruling. The impression I received from the piece (and I think most organists would say the same) was that the Atlantic in perfect good faith, of course had published an article in which the author inadvertently gives a rather inaccurate idea of the subject. — Walter Lindsay. Philadelphi, Pa.

The suggestion of Mr. Sanders, in November Repartee, that Miss Kirkland was wrong in saying Luke’s friend Theophilus lived in Rome in the first century (a view also held by so sound a scholar as the late Canon Streeter) may be well enough, as far as Rome is concerned, but when he goes on to identify Luke’s friend with Theophilus of Antioch, around A.D. 175. he goes too, too far.

To say that Papias, writing about A.D. 130—140, has nothing to say of the Gospel of Luke forgets that we do not possess Papias’ work; only about it page of it is extant, and who knows what he may have said in the other two or three hundred? The argument from silence does not apply. But Papias does reflect Luke’s second volume, the Acts, for he follows its explanation of the fate of Judas — that he swelled up and burst.

If Luke was not written, as Mr. Sanders thinks, before 165, how came Marcion, about 140, to adopt, edit, and promote it as the gospel part of his Christian scripture (Tertullian, Against Marcion, Bk, 5)? How does the writer of I Timothy come to quote it (v. 18) side by side with the Old Testament as scripture? The fact is, almost every Christian document written in the second quarter of the second century shows acquaintance with the fourfold gospel collection, including Luke.

I know of no ’eminent critical scholars’ who have proved or even suggested that Luke wrote in the time of Theophilus of Antioch. If they do, they have not read Tertullian. Theophilus of Antioch describes the gospels as inspired, like the prophets, by the one spirit of God — a strange thing to say of a book dedicated to one’s self!

If, as Mr. Sanders thinks, Luke was written in the time of Theophilus of Antioch, how does it come to show no literary influence either of the letters of Paul or of the Gospel of John, works the writer must have known and been influenced by if he wrote at that time? Theophilus himself knew them; why not his author friend? And why is none of the great schismatic movements, the heresies, that successively overshadow the second century—Docetism, Marcionism, Gnosticism. Montanism — reflected and corrected in it? So far is the ‘internal evidence.’ to which Mr. Sanders refers, from ‘corroborating this late dating.’ It is precisely the internal evidence that precludes it. — Edgar J. Goodspeed, Los Angeles, California